Real-Time Performance Data

Knowledge is power. The faster we get the information the better. In more and more aspects of our lives, we expect information in real-time or near real-time.

Real-time performance data are transmitted to users immediately, as soon as the data are produced. Delay is limited to the actual time required to transmit the data to the users. In a communications system, propagation delay refers to the time lag between the departure of a signal from the source and the arrival of the signal at the destination. Think of the real-time data you get from the speedometer of your car as you drove to work this morning. How much propagation delay would you tolerate? I’d say, none. Zippo! We push on the brake or accelerator and we expect information feedback in real-time.

Now think of the way we typically produce and transmit court performance data. How much propagation delay are we willing to tolerate? It seems like plenty.

Consider the status quo of court performance information generation and distribution today. Standardized written reports, typically limited to case processing data, are produced by court IT departments or state administrative offices of courts. (Far too often, performance data collection and distribution are done by and for others -- state administrative offices of the courts, county government, or funding agencies -- in timeframes that are not helpful or, worse, disruptive to court operations and management.) The reports are then printed and distributed. Weeks or months may pass between the generation of the performance data and the production of the reports. A report might not reach the attention of a potential user for months after the performance data are generated. If they are permitted at all, requests for any “special” or ad hoc reports are reviewed and handled by court analysts or statisticians and passed on to IT departments.

Talk about propagation delay! Consider the absurdity of getting a print-out of your car’s speed from your state’s DVM on a monthly basis instead of from your car’s speedometer in real-time.

The more timely the performance feedback, the more useful it is to court leaders, managers and staff. Real-time or near real-time should be the standard. Automated court performance measurement displays, powered by real-time analytical software, are on the horizon and are making real-time court performance data – and the elimination of propagation delay – not just a dream.

For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

Copyright CourtMetrics 2006. All rights reserved.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more

A Logic Model of Performance Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes

Increasingly, the courts' stakeholders -- justice system partners, the general public, litigants, jurors, witnesses, and even the courts’ own court employees -- demand clear evidence that the resources courts expend actually produce benefits for people. Looking for this evidence starts early in the development of a court performance measurement system (CPMS) (see Step 2, Identifying and Defining the Performance Measures Needed and Desired to Help Achieve Goals, October 15, 2005 posting, “Six-Step Process for Building an Effective Court Performance Measurement System”). For every strategic initiative, program or specific strategy, court managers should develop a simple logic model that describes how the initiative, program or strategy theoretically works to achieve the desired results from program inputs through end outcomes. Critical thinking and discussion of the logic of how a proposed program or strategy may bring about results that benefit citizens and the community can reap g
Read more